Define standard descriptive characteristics for motions to ratify or censure

[Reuben L. Lillie]

For consistency and explanatory purposes, it seems like at it would be better for the motions to ratify or censure to be explained under the chapter on incendental motions rather than so cursorily at the end of the chapter on the main motion. In the very least, it seems as though the motions to ratify or censure are different enough from the motion to adopt (e.g., recommendations about action to be taken v. not-yet-validated actions perhaps already taken) that the motions should fall under separate subheadings.

I raised more specific questions about the motion to ratify in an earlier post. But it also seems like the motions to ratify or censure deserve a more thorough treatment, if not with form and examples then at least with standard descritpive characteristics. I believe the motion to ratify (as opposed to the motion to censure) should not be allowed to be laid on the table such that it could ever fall to the ground. Actions requiring ratification should not go unratified. They should either be ratified or censured.

I also believe the synonym to "approve" for the motion to ratify should be omitted. Otherwise the motion to "approve" (i.e., ratify) could become a conflicting term with the practice of approving minutes, which is not done by a motion. Worse, an organization could become mistaken that approving minutes which might include action in need of ratification, say from a previously held special meeting since the last regular meeting, is somehow tantamount to ratifying such actions. Which is bad.

Edited March 12, 2019 at 09:02 PM by Reuben L. Lillie
Fix autocorrect typo from cursively to cursorily

[George Mervosh]

7 minutes ago, Reuben L. Lillie said:

For consistency and explanatory purposes, it seems like at it would be better for the motions to ratify or censure to be explained under the chapter on incendental motions rather than so cursively at the end of the chapter on the main motion.

But they are incidental main motions, not incidental motions (p. 124)

[Reuben L. Lillie]

3 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

But they are incidental main motions, not incidental motions (p. 124)

Yes. I understand. I suppose I'm more concerned about a more thorough treatment (especially what I believe to be distinguishing standard descriptive characteristics from other main motions) than a different location in the text.

[Shmuel Gerber]

16 minutes ago, Reuben L. Lillie said:

rather than so cursively at the end of the chapter on the main motion.

I think the word you're looking for is "cursorily".

[Reuben L. Lillie]

3 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think the word you're looking for is "cursorily".

Yes. Thank you. I'm typing on a mobile device, and autocorrect sometimes gets the best of me.

[Richard Brown]

28 minutes ago, Reuben L. Lillie said:

Yes. Thank you. I'm typing on a mobile device, and autocorrect sometimes gets the best of me.

And that is especially the case when using voice to text.  My phone insists on typing "resend" instead of "rescind", "number" instead of "member", and a few other oddities including refusing to understand what I'm saying when I say "RONR".  It gets "bylaws" right about half the time. 

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

But they are incidental main motions, not incidental motions (p. 124)

I realize that this is what the book says. However, this cannot be true for any and all cases. For example, if the actions were taken by an officer or a committee then it seems absurd to raise an Objection To The Consideration Of A Question on such an event. However, if the assembly itself adopted a main motion without a quorum or without proper notice and that motion itself could have been objected to, then somehow at the second event it is mysteriously called incidental and the motion to ratify can no longer be objected to even though the original motion was not validly adopted and has no other lasting effect.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Reuben L. Lillie said:

Yes. I understand. I suppose I'm more concerned about a more thorough treatment (especially what I believe to be distinguishing standard descriptive characteristics from other main motions) than a different location in the text.

I am not clear on what SDCs would be different.

1 hour ago, Reuben L. Lillie said:

Actions requiring ratification should not go unratified. They should either be ratified or censured.

I see no need for this. Actions which are invalid are not in limbo. They are invalid unless and until they are ratified. If they are not ratified, they remain invalid.

Edited March 12, 2019 at 10:20 PM by Josh Martin